Dear Tom et al, Thanks for comments--I see we've built up an impressive distribution list here! This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in large, I agree w/ Tom's comments (and those of Barrie's as well). A number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process in this area (both with regard to empirical "climate reconstruction" and in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley's Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and I are in the process of writing a review article for Reviews of Geophysics which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece for Science on the "Medieval Warm Period". Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a scientific point of view, they are awful--that is certainly true. For example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard they applied for finding "a Medieval Warm Period" was that a particular proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period AD 800-1300 that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the "20th century" (many of the proxy records don't really even resolve the late 20th century!) could be used to define an "MWP" anywhere one might like to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a "MWP" that was "warmer than the 20th century" (a non-sequitur even from their awful paper!) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words don't make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it weren't the case that they've gotten the (Bush) White House Office of Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this appropriately, but without some external pressure). So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC. Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of the "Harvard" moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by Murdoch and his crowd, and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer viruses, I fear that "Climate Research" has become a hopelessly compromised vehicle in the skeptics' (can we find a better word?) disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I've seen (e.g. a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit. This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by Tom and Danny Harvey and I'm sure there is much more) that a legitimate peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different nature--there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/ appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn't see the light of the day at J. Climate, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is probably little that can be done here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL. best regards, Mike At 11:53 PM 4/23/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear friends, [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed] I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some unique things about this situation. Barrie says .... (1) There are lots of bad papers out there (2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal' to which I add .... (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR. ____________________ Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation). Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did in the above example -- then this is an advantage. _____________________________ There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut. Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on this? _______________________________ There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be involved in writing a response. The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.

The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research (vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he responded saying ..... The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ... The other three referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual. On the surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees who advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to. It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper -- deFreitas has offered us this possibility. ______________________________ This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on). The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult. The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through. _______________________________ Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this. If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself. In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels' PhD is at the same level). ______________________________ Best wishes to all, Tom.